Five Springfield City Council members issued a statement to the public this morning explaining why they requested an independent hearing examiner investigate Councilwoman Kristi Fulnecky’s eligibility to serve in her general council seat.
This morning’s release, which relates to “the failure of Councilwoman Fulnecky to obtain a business license and pay the required tax,” was issued by the city on behalf of Mayor Pro Tem Ken McClure, Councilwoman Phyllis Ferguson, Councilman Craig Fishel, Councilwoman Jan Fisk and Councilman Mike Schilling.
The charge: Fulnecky’s construction management firm Fulnecky Enterprises LLC was at the time of her April election roughly seven years behind on its city business license fees. Under city charter, no person who is in arrears for any city taxes is eligible to hold office.
Fulnecky said in a phone interview this morning she never had any intention to avoid paying business-licensing fees.
“I never received any notice at all,” Fulnecky said, adding it was around the end of August before she knew there was an issue. “Plus, this is a civil issue. It is not a criminal issue. People may not realize you can rectify a business-license issue by paying.”
She said after some back and forth with city officials as to what details were needed on her license application, she paid three years worth of fees – as much as she could on back fees under city code – despite the fact she is not convinced she needed to pay. In the city of Springfield, attorneys are not required to obtain business licenses for their practice, said city spokeswoman Cora Scott.
While Fulnecky has a license to practice law, Fulnecky Enterprises is not a law firm.
“We’re going to get a court opinion or an administrative opinion on whether I even need to have a license to begin with,” Fulnecky said, adding she was certified by the city clerk to run for office after submitting information on her business affiliation to the clerk’s office. “If the licensing office dropped the ball … the clerk’s office, nobody ever said anything to me.”
The announcement follows statements made by Fulnecky and Mayor Bob Stephens to the
Springfield News-Leader in the past week regarding a suit filed against the city challenging an indecent exposure ordinance passed narrowly by council in September. Fulnecky questioned whether the mayor knew the American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit was coming – knowledge the mayor denies.
Fulnecky said this morning she feels the council members calling for an investigation into the business-license debt are simply following the mayor’s charges.
“The mayor is a bully and this is how he acts,” she said.
According to this morning’s release about the investigation into Fulnecky’s business-license fees, the issues are unrelated.
“In spite of allegations to the contrary, our actions on this matter are totally separate from the indecent exposure ordinance and are only taken after careful consideration. We are acting independently of questions raised regarding the ordinance and subsequent filing of a lawsuit. In fact, our voting record shows that three of us voted in favor and two voted in opposition,” the council members said in the release.
Stephens held a news conference
on Friday sharing a timeline of events connected to Fulnecky’s business license.
According to the timeline, on Aug. 28, Fulnecky had a phone conversation with Springfield Finance Director Mary Mannix Decker about the license and Springfield Licensing Supervisor Buffee Smith sent the councilwoman an email including a license application for Fulnecky Enterprises. Decker sent a follow-up email to Fulnecky on Oct. 6, which Fulnecky responded to on Oct. 14, asking about the basis for the calculation of the license tax. On Oct. 28, the city received a completed license application and payment of three years of fees.
According to the release this morning, an appointment of a hearing examiner is required in city code to deal with such a matter. Retired Judge John Holstein will serve in the role, Scott said, noting council is expected to affirm him tomorrow. Following any findings or conclusions issued by the examiner, council may seek Fulnecky’s censure, suspension or removal from office under city code.
